The language around abortion

...can never be completely neutral [View this email online]( [NPR Public Editor by Poynter's Kelly McBride]( Back in 2019, people who wanted to see abortion made illegal got really [mad]( at NPR for reminding its staff of language guidance that had been in place since 2010. The policy is an effort to make stories about abortion laws and procedures as accurate and neutral as possible. Some critics detected an unfairness. At NPR, language describing those who oppose legal abortion as “antiabortion” is permitted. But using the words “pro-abortion” or even “pro-abortion rights” to describe those who support legal abortion are discouraged. It’s journalistically sound advice, because it’s accurate. While “pro-life” and “pro-choice” have long been frowned upon in journalism because they are euphamisms that don’t accurately describe the legal and political debate, other words are more controversial. Like the word “baby,” a description commonly used by regular people to refer to an embryo or fetus growing inside a womb, but which is not medically accurate until a birth occurs. This tension is not going to be resolved any time soon, as you can see from two letters we recently received. The best NPR stories on abortion sidestep much of this controversy by [letting]( real people use their own [words]( to describe their own experiences. It’s not always possible to do this, because there are so many legal and political developments to cover. But when it happens, it’s the kind of coverage that’s hard to argue with. Here are a few quotes from the Public Editor's inbox that resonated with us. You can share your questions and concerns with us through the [NPR Contact page](. Labels and language in the abortion debate Ashok Sanadi writes: [In the piece linked]( [a correspondent] referred to those protesting anti-abortion laws as "pro-abortion." … No one is for abortion … Those who want women to have the choice are not in favor of abortion either — they are in favor of women having the right to choose. ... Is it ethical for a reporter to use terminology that blatantly favors one side over another, in a very polarizing issue? This question is rhetorical, as I think the answer is self-evident. We do love a rhetorical question here at the Public Editor’s office. It gives us a chance to explain and explore. The professional journalism community has devoted a lot of energy toward finding neutral and accurate words to use when telling stories about the abortion debate. That’s because both sides employ phrases like “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” rhetoric designed to frame the debate around specific values. This very long 1990 [story]( from the Los Angeles Times details the state of the debate within journalism at the time. Since then, professional newsrooms have parsed language around [cardiac activity]( and the [differences]( between an embryo, a fetus and an unborn baby. You linked to a radio story about the impact of the Texas law on the Virginia governor’s race, in which the reporter refers to Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe as “pro-abortion rights.” NPR’s official guidance waves reporters away from that term, because it’s too close to “pro-abortion,” which, as you pointed out, is largely inaccurate. Instead, those who favor the legal right to abortion would say they are arguing that individuals should make their own decisions. The last guidance on this issue was a reminder [published]( by NPR’s former Standards Editor Mark Memmott in 2019. It read: On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion rights,” but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights.” Digital News will continue to use the AP style book for online content, which mirrors the revised NPR policy. Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain. That guidance restates standards that were established at NPR in 2010, Memmott told me. Previous Public Editor Elizabeth Jensen [reviewed]( NPR’s policies and coverage in 2019, as coverage of several new state laws curtailing abortion ramped up. Her conclusion: It’s impossible to find completely neutral language, but that shouldn’t stop NPR from trying. — Kelly McBride Hearing an older interview in a new light Mara Greengrass writes: I normally enjoy listening to Scott Simon but his interview with Leni Zumas about her book "Red Clocks" on Book of the Day (as [heard on]( Up First) made my teeth grind together and I had to stop listening. I must commend Zumas for her patience with his questions about IVF, abortion, and personhood … Scott should know better than to try and lecture a person with a uterus about her own emotions and experiences with pregnancy and infertility. Please ask him to do better next time. Weekend Edition host Scott Simon conducted that [interview]( when the book, Red Clocks, came out in 2018. It resurfaced last week via the new Book of the Day podcast, which made clear the interview was conducted when the book came out. And that was shared in a cross-promotion with subscribers to the Up First podcast. So it got a lot of audience. Simon asks the author about a teenage character who refers to her unwanted pregnancy as “the clump.” The entire novel is about a future where the government controls reproductive medicine and women seeking both fertility treatments and abortions are denied access. Since the enactment of the Texas law that prohibits abortion after six weeks, NPR has covered the [legal maneuvers]( and the [impact on people]( seeking abortions who must travel significant distances with both compassion and accuracy. I reached out to Simon to ask if he thought his questions from the 2018 interview held up in the light of 2021. “Every measure of public opinion shows the feelings of American women on abortion are personal and complex,” he said in an email. “I asked the novelist, Leni Zumas, if a 15-and-a-half-year-old girl who is pregnant refers to “The Clump” within … to distance herself. Leni Zumas replied, ‘That’s a good question. I think that she does want to distance herself but she's — she doesn't know what she's doing, you know, she hasn't quite turned 16…’ ” After that question, Simon asked about “couples who see something stirring on an IVF image and do not think of what they see as a clump.” In his email to me he said he was drawing on his own experience of trying to start a family. Indeed, Zumas’ reply was a good one: “I remember when I got the call that I was pregnant after many, many tries. And certainly I wasn't using the word clump to myself. But that doesn't mean that a 15-and-a-half-year-old doesn't get to use that word for herself.” It is a host’s duty to ask tough questions in an interview, on behalf of those in the audience. Were he doing the interview today, Simon said he certainly would have referenced the Texas law. “I think the questions brought out strong, thoughtful answers,” he said. I believe that had he minimized his own experiences, he would have made even more room for Zumas’ insight. — Kelly McBride The Public Editor spends a lot of time examining moments where NPR fell short. Yet we also learn a lot about NPR by looking at work that we find to be compelling and excellent journalism. Here we share a line or two about the pieces where NPR shines. Behind the music [Soul Train made its national television premiere 50 years ago, in October 1971.]( Blake Cale for NPR IT'S BEEN A MINUTE WITH SAM SANDERS [There Was Nothing Like 'Soul Train' On TV. There's Never Been Anything Like It Since]( It’s Been a Minute’s recent exploration of crossover in the music world has been great. In three parts, host Sam Sanders and various guests reflect on music history, first about [the impact of Soul Train]( then [Janet Jackson’s legacy]( and finally the landscape of [Latin music in the late ’90s](. Each part is a worthy listen. — Kayla Randall The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Researchers Amaris Castillo and Kayla Randall make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on [Facebook]( [Twitter]( and [from our inbox](. As always, keep them coming. Kelly McBride NPR Public Editor Chair, [Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute]( Kelly McBride, Public Editor Kayla Randall, NPR Amaris Castillo, Poynter Institute The Public Editor stands as a source of independent accountability. Created by NPR's board of directors, the Public Editor serves as a bridge between the newsroom and the audience, striving to both listen to the audience's concerns and explain the newsroom's work and ambitions. The office ensures NPR remains steadfast in its mission to present fair, accurate and comprehensive information in service of democracy. [Read more]( from the NPR Public Editor, [contact us]( or follow us on [Twitter](. You received this message because you're subscribed to Public Editor emails. This email was sent by National Public Radio, Inc., 1111 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20002 [Unsubscribe]( | [Privacy Policy]( [NPR logo]